Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 54 (2015) 11e19 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Studies in History and Philosophy of Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa Henry More and the development of absolute time Emily Thomas University of Groningen, Faculty of Theology & Religious Studies, Oude Boteringestraat 38, 9712 GK Groningen, Netherlands article info abstract Article history: This paper explores the nature, development and influence of the first English account of absolute time, Received 10 February 2015 put forward in the mid-seventeenth century by the ‘Cambridge Platonist’ Henry More. Against claims in Received in revised form the literature that More does not have an account of time, this paper sets out More’s evolving account 19 May 2015 and shows that it reveals the lasting influence of Plotinus. Further, this paper argues that More developed Available online xxx his views on time in response to his adoption of Descartes’ vortex cosmology and cosmogony, providing new evidence of More’s wider project to absorb Cartesian natural philosophy into his Platonic meta- Keywords: physics. Finally, this paper argues that More should be added to the list of sources that later English Henry More; e e Absolute time; thinkers including Newton and Samuel Clarke drew on in constructing their absolute accounts of Absolute space; time. Cartesianism; Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Newton When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 1. Introduction more generally. With a view to opening a path for further schol- arship, Section 4 sketches the ways that More’s account of time may In the mid seventeenth century, the ‘Cambridge Platonist’ Henry have influenced later English thinkers, including the great abso- More (1614e1687) developed the first English account of absolute lutist, Newton himself. Section 5 concludes. More’s neglected views time, on which time is connected with God’s duration.1 This paper on time were both rich and potentially influential. details the Platonic nature of More’s views on time, argues that their development is connected with More’s Cartesianism, and 2. More and the nature of absolute time discusses their influence on subsequent English thinkers. The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 explains how I un- 2.1. Introducing absolutism about time derstand ‘absolutism’, before exploring the evolution of More’s absolutism about time. I argue that the Platonic account More More is an ‘absolutist’ and a ‘substantivalist’ about time. Both provides in 1647 is deeply connected to the later account that he notions are difficult to define and this paper simply stipulates their advances from 1655, evidencing the long shadow that Plotinus cast meanings, in ways I take to be compatible with the scholarship. I over his work. Along the way, I correct various misperceptions in label ‘absolutism’ the thesis that time is independent of things e the scholarship, including the thesis that More does not have views with the possible exception of God e including motions, material on time. Section 3 asks what led More to develop an absolute ac- bodies and human minds.2 Absolutism is usually taken to involve ’ count of time in 1647, and argues that the answer lies in More s what I will label ‘substantivalism’, the thesis that time is real,an newfound Cartesian cosmology and cosmogony. This provides a new illustration of More’s wider project to combine Cartesian 2 natural philosophy with Platonic metaphysics, and puts a fresh Earman (1989, 11) provides a rare extended discussion of Newtonian abso- lutism and takes one sense of absoluteness to be that there is an absolute duration, twist on the development of early modern theories of absolute time ‘independent of the path connecting the events’. Ariotti (1973, 31) describes ab- solute time as ‘independent of external motion’. Hutton (1977, 363) refers to the ‘measure of independence’ accorded to absolute time. Edwards (2013, 1) writes that E-mail address: [email protected]. absolute time is ‘wholly independent’ of anything ‘external’, including motion and 1 For a general overview of More’s life and works, see Hutton (2008). the human soul. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.06.003 0039-3681/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 12 E. Thomas / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 54 (2015) 11e19 existing being.3 For More, absolutism is inextricably twined with time as an attribute of God e Baker provides almost no discussion substantivalism. and claims that More ‘had but little’ to say of time. Others go Absolutism can be contrasted with Aristotelian theories of time. further. A. E. Burtt (1924, 149-154) claims, ‘More was not much I will give a (very) brief history of the pertinent philosophy of time, interested in time’, and credits Barrow as being the first to develop as it will prove useful below. an absolute account of time. Majorie Nicolson (1959, 158) briefly For Aristotle, time is the ‘number’ of motion (Phys 219b1). The states that More advocated an absolute account of time in his Poems idea is that, in the same way we perceive the greater or lesser by but adds that it was less More than Barrow who formulated the number e such as a greater or lesser number of substances e we theories of absolute time that were developed by thinkers such as perceive greater and lesser motion by time. For Aristotle, time ap- Newton. Max Jammer (2006, 69) argues that Barrow’s philosophy pears to depend on the soul, for numbers and times are counted, of time ‘appears to have been strongly influenced’ by More’s phi- and only souls can count (Phys 223a22). Further, Aristotle associates losophy of space, overlooking More’s account of time. Steffen time with the measure of the outermost ‘celestial sphere’ (Phys Ducheyne (2008, 217) writes, ‘More . said nothing of substance 223b18-24). In the Aristotelian universe, the earth is immobile, on absolute time’ and denies that More equated time with eternal and it is surrounded by rotating spheres. The celestial bodies e the duration; I will say more on the latter below. moon, sun and stars e are fixed to the spheres, and the motion of Even scholars who do not overlook More’s account of time have the spheres explains the motion of the heavenly bodies (Cael surprisingly little to say about it. David Leech’s recent study of 289b32-3). Aristotle argues the universe is finite (Cael 271b26). More’s rational theology discusses More’s spatial views over several The universe neither came into being nor admits of destruction chapters, yet Leech (2013, 141) addresses More’s views on time in (Cael 283b22-3); it is a ‘steady state’ universe. The movement of the just one solitary footnote. Jasper Reid’s impressive (2012) study of outermost celestial sphere provides an excellent starting point for More’s metaphysics discusses various aspects of More’s system as it our understanding of time because it is uniform, standard and relates to time but does not discuss the nature of time itself. Alan measurable. For example, one revolution of the sphere measures a Gabbey (1982, 192-3) states that absolutism about space and time day, and a day can be used to measure other motions, such as a sea is an ‘implied assumption’ in More’s letters to Descartes and to voyage. Aristotelian cosmology was modified somewhat by Conway, but Gabbey does not expand on this. Ptolemy in the second century, who introduced many more celes- This section will rebuff the misperception that More lacks sub- tial spheres to account for the irregular movements of the sun, stantive views on time, and greatly expand on the existing schol- moon and planets; the movements of the stars were still held to be arship that allows More holds views on time. More actually regular. advances two accounts of time: an early account given in 1647, and Following the introduction of Aristotle’s texts into twelfth cen- a later account given from 1655 onwards. Below, I will show that tury Western philosophy, Aristotelian philosophy of time came to these accounts are deeply connected. dominate. The vast majority of subsequent accounts of time We will begin with More’s early account of time. More’s1642 exhibited one or two Aristotelian themes: time is dependent on Psychodia Platonica draws on neo-Platonism to characterise the individual human souls; or, time is the movement (or the measure universe as a sequence of eight emanations. More argues that the of the movement) of the outermost celestial sphere. These themes ‘Platonicall Triad’ that comprises the first three of these emanations can be found in a wide range of thinkers, including Averroes, e Ahad, Aeon and Psyche e can be unified with the Christian Albertus Magnus, Aquinas, Peter Aureol, Copernicus, Toletus, Gali- Trinity. Ahad, the One, is unified with the Christian God; Aeon, the leo, Hobbes and Descartes. Very gradually, from the sixteenth Platonist mind, is unified with the Christian son of God, Christ; and century onwards, non-Aristotelian accounts were developed that Psyche, the Platonic Soul, is unified with the Christian Holy Spirit took time to be independent of human souls and celestial motions. (Poems 10-12)5. As we descend from Ahad, the emanations become Scholars have argued that such absolute or quasi-absolute accounts less real, until the eighth emanation e ‘hyle’ or matter e barely can be found in a tiny minority of thinkers, including Bernadino exists. Matter is infinitely remote from God’s goodness and Telesio, Giordano Bruno, Francesco Patrizi and Francisco Suárez.4 perfection, leading to More’s disparagement of it as ‘perverse’ and Around the 1640s, absolute accounts of time were developed by an ‘old hag’ (Poems 54).